[l23k4]

>of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.

Are you planning to substantiate this conspiracy theory in any way?

[trhway]

Where do you see a conspiracy theory? I've shown the numbers, it is simple arithmetics.

The situation is similar with mortgage CDS back then - no conspiracy theory/whatever, they just found a way to make AAA bonds out of junk. It was a simple arithmetics too. Everybody knew the arithmetics and was doing it.

Now is the same - they talked about that expected float/valuation squeeze even on NPR - this is where i heard it, i'm not that into finance markets to come up with it myself :)

[l23k4]

> Where do you see a conspiracy theory?

You are presenting a theory that an unidentified group of people is engaged in a conspiracy to change the rules of the major indices for corrupt reasons.

That's a conspiracy theory. It might be true, but so far nobody can come up with any evidence in support of it.

The simplest possible explanation is that the indices are supposed to track the market, they can't do that if they exclude these IPOs.

[trhway]

The simplest possible explanation is basic statistics so the top 20% of those bonds supposed to fit AAA criteria. No conspiracy. No "unidentified group of people". No corrupt reasons, just legitimate profit seeking and extraction.

It just naturally happens that that legitimate profit seeking and extractions benefits from the actions like "the indices are supposed to track the market, they can't do that if they exclude these IPOs", and i described the natural simple arithmetics how it happens. No conspiracy. Just arithmetics. You can verify it.

[l23k4]

> of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money

You claim this to have been engineered somehow

[trhway]

Ok, use another word. "Came up with". Or whatever process was used which resulted in the new rule of inclusion of those IPOs into the indexes.